Commentary: Village releases statement and report on protest complaint

Editor’s Note: The formal complaint by Rita Conerly was addressed by Mayor Sean Widener at the Village of the Mahomet Board of Trustees meeting Tuesday night. The following includes the statement by Widener and the report the Village of Mahomet released on the complaints against Mahomet Police Chief Mike Metzler.

Mayor Sean Widener’s Statement regarding the July 8 “My Culture is not a Trend” Protest:

Village of Mahomet Report on Complaint Against Village of Mahomet Police Chief Mike Metzler (VOM is Village of Mahomet)

The following is a report prepared by the Village of Mahomet as it relates to a complaint against Village of Mahomet Police Chief by Rita Conerly. In Ms. Conerly’s email, dated July 12, 2020, there were a total of seventeen complaints/statements with regards to the actions of Chief Metzler at the July 8, 2020, Paign to Peace “My Culture is not a Trend” protest in Mahomet, Illinois. This complaint was investigated by the Village Administrator and the Village President. Source data for the investigation included the written complaint by Ms. Conerly, Facebook live videos posted by Ms. Conerly (and others) during the event and miscellaneous photographs/comments posted on social media from the event. The Chief of Police was interviewed by the Village Administrator. The Village of Mahomet responses to the said complaint are shown below in BOLD.

1. The Mahomet Chief and Police did not “work in partnership with the community to enforce the law impartially, protect lives, and enhance public safety.”
   VOM: We found no evidence that Chief Metzler did not work in partnership with organizer, Ms. DuPree, and the community for this event. To the contrary, Chief Metzler reached out proactively to the organizer to make sure we could provide a safe environment for the event. Lastly, Chief Metzler and other police officers assisting with the event did so to protect lives and enhance public safety.
2. Misconduct and inability to perform in his role as the chief of police for Mahomet Police Department.
   VOM: We found no evidence of misconduct or an inability to perform his duties as Police Chief.
3. His interaction with the community at large, does not align with what your city’s police department mission statement.
   VOM: Chief Metzler has an exceptional reputation in our community.
4. On July 8, at approximately 1pm, Paign to Peace, a local, youth organization, organized a protest in Mahomet on this day.
   VOM: Public posting on Facebook, communications with Chief Metzler, and the approved special event permit all indicated a start time of 1:00 PM. We do not agree with the word “approximately” as the starting time was clear in the written and verbal communications. It should be noted that there was commentary on Facebook live videos that asserted the Chief was preventing the protest from starting on time, but evidence shows the group was waiting
   for Ms. DuPree, who did not arrive until around 1:20, and a support vehicle required gas in order to complete the one-mile route.
5. Prior to the protest and days leading up to July 8, there had been several discussions around planning with the chief and organizers of this rally.
   VOM: We concur that leading up to the event, Chief Metzler had several communications with the organizer, Ms. DuPree. Chief Metzler was the primary point of contact for the Village and coordination with Ms. DuPree began on Monday, July 6, 2020 and he spoke with no other organizer about details of the event. Communications included emails and one meeting in person to discuss the planned route and safety concerns expressed by the Village of Mahomet.
6. Upon arrival, Chief Metzler, was very confrontational and did not exhibit his training with deescalating the issues, but rather incited negative behavior through his own actions. His conduct included discriminatory harassment, unlawful stops and standing in front of vehicles, and threats to citizens that attempted to be peaceful with showing solidarity.
   VOM: Chief Metzler arrived at the starting location at several minutes prior to 1 PM. The event organizer and responsible special permit holder, Ms. DuPree, was not present at the planned starting time. During Ms. DuPree’s absence, Chief Metzler communicated with a number of participants who claimed to be the organizers of the event which certainly contributed to confusion and conflicting information. Chief Metzler was correct not to discuss any planned changes to the event without Ms. DuPree, the permit holder and organizer being present, but after several minutes of waiting, he agreed to the vehicle request. The situation would have been better if Ms. DuPree was present on time. Chief Metzler’s actions were found to be acceptable.
7. I witnessed Chief Metzler invade my and other protesters’ personal space completely unnecessarily and unsafely (It should be noted that he was not wearing a mask and when he was asked to wear one and even offered a mask, he refused on several occasions).
   VOM: We acknowledge Chief Metzler was not wearing a mask.
8. He leaned in and squared off with everyone he interacted with, using well-known intimidation tactics and non-verbal techniques that communicate his dominance and control.
   VOM: We found no evidence of Chief Metzler using intimidation tactics as described herein.
9. He even went so far as to place his hands on at least one protester, physical contact that was completely unprovoked, unwanted, and uncalled for! Chief Metzler clearly engaged in escalation behaviors, and not the de-escalation techniques I’m sure he has been trained to use.
   VOM: We reviewed several videos posted on social media. We do not agree with your characterization. We saw incidental contact between Chief Metzler and an individual where Chief Metzler briefly and lightly touched the person’s upper arm. Viewed in the context of the
   entire interaction, it is clear Chief Metzler is engaged in discussion with the person and as part of the communication Chief Metzler has non-offensive, innocent contact with the person he is talking with. No evidence of physical contact or intimidation tactics was discovered when viewing social media videos of the event.
10. The second thing that caused frustration before the march could even begin were the barriers that Chief Metzler attempted to put into place.
    VOM: It is unclear what this statement is referring to. However, the Village followed the plans pre-arranged with Ms. DuPree. Any variation of those arrangements was adjusted after discussion with several other participants on-site because Ms. DuPree was late at arriving for the march. The changes include agreeing to the addition of the vehicles to the planned march which we do not believe were barriers.
11. It is my understanding that the organizers, Paign to Peace, had a permit for the event and, included in the permit, was the stipulation that vehicles and pedestrians were granted permission to march in the roadways.
    VOM: During said communications on Monday and Tuesday prior to the event, the organizer did not disclose or request the use of vehicles. Ms. DuPree sent us her first Special Event Request Form at 7:25 AM on the morning of the event and she answered “No” to the PARADE (Floats, Participants) section. Chief asked her to correct that section to answer “Yes” because they had discussed that “participants” would be marching in the public roadway. Vehicles were never a stipulation and never discussed ahead of time. The Village’s understanding of the event was this was a protest march with a pedestrian one-mile route and six planned speaking stops were agreed upon by Chief Metzler and Ms. DuPree. It should be noted that organizers did not stop at the first two planned intersections for their speakers and it is unknown why they chose not to stop.
12. Just prior to the beginning of the march, Chief Metzler approached Paign to Peace and told them they could not include vehicles in the march. This is not what was agreed upon and it is unclear why he was attempting to prohibit the use of the vehicles.
    VOM: As stated above, Chief Metzler was correct not to discuss any planned changes to the event without the permit holder and organizer being present. Chief Metzler’s actions were found to be acceptable. However, after waiting several minutes only to find that Ms. DuPree still was not present, Chief Metzler allowed the vehicles in the parade.
13. I have participated in many parades/marches throughout my time in this community and pedestrians and vehicles have always shared the roadway. Clearly, this was an attempt to silence the protesters and introduce unnecessary barriers. There was a vehicle present to carry the speakers/amplifiers and microphone, for those who would speak at the intersections. There was a vehicle carrying water, snacks, first aid kits, extra masks, and other necessities. There was a vehicle that was supposed to lag behind the pedestrians, in case they needed to rest, given the blistering hot temperatures. (It should be noted that this vehicle was not allowed to follow us.) Chief Metzler eventually allowed two vehicles to lead the march, although it should also be
    noted that he gave them permission to proceed, and then stood in front of them and blocked their vehicle, several times at the beginning of the march.
    VOM: We concur that after discussions with other participants since the organizer was not present, Chief Metzler allowed two vehicles into the event. Ms. DuPree should have communicated these additional and important details in her meeting with the chief on Tuesday. We concur that Chief Metzler stood in front of the vehicles to prevent a moving vehicle from encroaching into the crowd of pedestrians and in order for us to get our support people into position first. Chief Metzler’s actions were found to be acceptable.
14. These tactics are all designed to intimidate and assert his control/dominance, and these are just some of the reasons that protesters were angry today. I was angry, too! Yes, some protesters said things during the march that you may think were unnecessary, but I completely understand their anger and frustration!
    VOM: We concur that derogatory verbal communications from some participants of this event directed towards multiple police officers were unnecessary.
15. Imagine for a moment that you are trying to peacefully protest inequality, injustice, and unnecessary use of force by law enforcement, and those very same people are at the protest, instigating and antagonizing protesters.
    VOM: Per the requests listed on the special event permit, Village of Mahomet police were providing “Traffic and Event Control”. The actions by law enforcement were found to be acceptable, standard procedure and designed for public safety, including traffic control and pedestrian safety.
16. At one point, officers were laughing out loud when confronted with their unsafe behaviors- they were not wearing masks and were getting within 6 feet of protesters.
    VOM: All of our officers attempted to keep social distancing of more than six feet at this outdoor event but were approach by participants during the march and confronted for not wearing masks. There was at least one incident where a police officer was smiling when being confronted by participants. While this particular action can be interpreted differently and not related to the issue of masks, we found no evidence of unacceptable behavior by law enforcement.
17. If the police are truly here to serve and protect its citizens, doesn’t that include wearing a mask to protect us from the transmission of COVID-19, especially if they are going to get into our space? This is yet another example of how the police seem to carry themselves as though they do not have to abide by the same rules that the rest of us do
    VOM: We concur that Mahomet Police officers should have worn a mask at times when minimum social distancing could not be achieved at this outdoor event.